...About the Market-Garden module.....

[silverstars]

Now I have heard Steve say multiple times that all modules would be stand alone products, i.e. you wouldn't need module 1 to play module 2, just the base game and module 2.

To further clarify, let's take CMSF. You don't need the Marines module to play any part of the British module. Same goes for the NATO module. So that there was none of that old ASL "module purchasing tree" where you had to buy the modules in a certain order otherwise you couldn't use this sub-sect of rules to run 3 out of the 20 scenarios, and all that headache.

So my point is, how do you make a Market-Garden module without the Brits/SS module? would you just have the TO&E for the Brits/SS if you setup a game for September only? Would the campaign literally only use Brit tanks added for this module?

[LemoN]

I don't know how it's done in CM:SF but I'd like the option to "merge" them.

i.e. if I have CM:BN and buy modules x and y I'd love to be able to combine units from the different packs on one map.

[mjkerner]

i.e. if I have CM:BN and buy modules x and y I'd love to be able to combine units from the different packs on one map.

That's how it's done in CMSF. All the modules are merged in the game (except CM:A, which is a separate 3rd party licensed title). IIRC, in CM Family, the games won't inter-mix, but the modules will.

[MikeyD]

In CMSF you can combine different module units to your heart's content. I posted a nasty 3rd party tank fight scenario on Repository that needed both Marine and Brit modules (Challengers vs T90s). The problem was for the purchase product, keeping a 'wall of seperation' between module forces so people wouldn't need all modules to play what they had just bought. I recall scenario designers always had to go back and swap some out wrong-module units that persisted in sneaking into our scenarios despite our best efforts.

BFC has put some thought into the SS/FJ-in-multiple-modules issue and claim to have a 'cunning plan' (to quote Blackadder). My suggestion that they simply make the modules cumulative and mandatory didn't fly with them.

[RogCBrand]

BFC has put some thought into the SS/FJ-in-multiple-modules issue and claim to have a 'cunning plan' (to quote Blackadder). My suggestion that they simply make the modules cumulative and mandatory didn't fly with them.

So, who at BFC is Baldrick?

[GSX]

This has already been discussed at some length in the Brits thread.

My take on it is this:

They will need to leave the Brit Airborne out of the CW Module. This means they can provide them and new terrain, buildings and flavour objects.

They can then either give the SS away again in this module, or provide new SS models.

As for other Brit armour, perhaps they can design the campaign with just airborne forces. This approach can be seen already in CMBN and makes sense to me, as if they don't add anything significant anyone can build their own MG (Market Garden) scenarios and campaigns.

In summary; save Brit Airborne, new buildings etc for MG. Give away SS formations and design it so that it does not need any other Modules to play.

[Michael Emrys]

It will also require Heer and Luftwaffe forces as they were definitely involved in MG. I think the question is not what forces will be in the module, but which will be added.

Michael

[Peter Cairns]

I'd go for the CW module and the MG module being the same thing. For me after D-day MG is one of the biggest British actions of the war.

Call the commonwealth Module MG and then you can use the US forces from BN in MG and the British forces in MG in BN. The same with the SS.

I think in terms of terrain and forces we are only talking about a few monthes and a few hundred miles.

When it comes to things like 1940 to 41 "Spring time for Hitler" or Africa then you need to do something really substantial and that creates an issue. Interesting as these areas are anything that comes before Pearl Harbour and doesn't have US forces won't make the money that Bn will, with the possible exception of the Russian front.

For me I like British paras so a MG module that lets you also do Pegasus Bridge would be ideal, although the other biggy for me , and I think with the new smaller scale it can work and work well is The Pacific.

Whether there would be a market for a pacific module covering the Brits and indians in Burma or even the Chinese would be open to doubt.

Peter.

[phil stanbridge]

This is an interesting question. For example, in one SF campaign, playing as NATO Dutch you have access to US Apache helicopters. This is part of the campaign and cannot be changed - so it does beg the question, how will these modules all coincide with one another. I hope there is a level of cohesion between them, because I for one would like to see the battles/campaigns fought on several levels, between different forces.

[Erik Springelkamp]

This is an interesting question. For example, in one SF campaign, playing as NATO Dutch you have access to US Apache helicopters.

I think they are meant to be Dutch Apache helicopters.

[TheVulture]

This is an interesting question. For example, in one SF campaign, playing as NATO Dutch you have access to US Apache helicopters. This is part of the campaign and cannot be changed - so it does beg the question, how will these modules all coincide with one another. I hope there is a level of cohesion between them, because I for one would like to see the battles/campaigns fought on several levels, between different forces.

The Apache is part of the base game though. Each module should stick to units that are in that module and the base game, and only avoid units that are in another module.

So there'd be no conceptual problem sticking a stryker company in one of the NATO campaigns, since that is a base game formation, but a marine platoon would be right out.

[Wodin]

Wasn't MG going to be a standalone game? Or was that the Bulge?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Bulge

......